IMPORTANT POINT
A genuine claim must be allowed in its entirety.

K. S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint Case No.08/2010 – Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, complaint was partly allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant is engaged in trading of agricultural inputs manufacturing and supplying of agric inputs. Complainant had taken Marine Cargo Insurance Policy on estimated annual sales turnover from OP/respondent for a period of one year from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 and there was balance of Rs.315 crores sum insured at the time of loss. On 12.5.2009, complainant booked consignment of the dehydrated powder of onion for shipment and accordingly it was loaded from complainant’s unit of Jalgaon on 15.5.2009 valuing 492,15.60 Euro. Net weight of consignment was 20088 kgs. and gross weight was 21607 kgs. Consignment was packed in customary and standard packing conditions. Consignment was carried in containers and trailer carrying consignment met with an accident on 19.5.2009 in Kasara Ghat and fell 50-60 feet down under the valley. Intimation of accident was given to the police and as per driver, accident occurred due to failure of brake. OP was also intimated and surveyor was appointed. Surveyor visited complainant’s Jalgaon unit on 11.6.2009 and collected necessary information and documents and submitted report on 30.9.2009 wherein he assessed loss of Rs.15,33,312.90, but expressed 7 kgs. over weight as cause of accident whereas, overloading was not cause of accident. Goods were brought to the factory premises of the complainant and were tested in laboratory for analysis and it was reported that goods have become unfit for human consumption. OP repudiated claim on the basis of exclusion clauses. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission and claimed loss of Rs.35,14,481/-. OP resisted complaint and submitted that OP appointed surveyor, who carried out spot survey on 23.5.2009 and found seal on the container intact, so, he could not inspect consignment inside the container. Complainant told surveyor that container will be opened at its premises at Jalgaon. Later on, goods were taken to Jalgaon and another surveyor was appointed, who visited premises of the complainant and submitted report, but did not recommend claim in view of exclusion clauses 4.1 to 4.5 in the insurance policy. It was further submitted that complainant did not submit laboratory analysis report in support of the contention that goods were unfit for human consumption.414 bags were torn due to mishandling from the spot of accident to the unit and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties observed that exclusion clauses were not attracted, but allowed partial claim and directed OP to pay Rs.15,33,000/- with 9% p. a. interest and further allowed cost of Rs.5,000/- against which, this appeal has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent has not challenged impugned order and findings of learned State Commission regarding non-application of exclusion clauses has attained finality. Learned State Commission committed error in allowing partial claim; hence, appeal be allowed and rest of the claim be allowed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that looking to exclusion clauses and surveyor’s report, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

5. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission after detailed discussion observed that exclusion clauses 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 5.1 of the Insurance Policy are not attracted. Admittedly, respondent has not ch